Agenda item

Members were asked to consider and determine an application for a combined hackney carriage and private hire driver licence from Applicant - 158251 who had previously held a combined licence with this authority, and which was revoked by this Licensing Committee.

The Licensing Team Leader explained to the Committee that Applicant - 158251 was not in attendance at the hearing, despite being made aware of it. The Licensing Team Leader told the Committee that Applicant - 158251 had requested to withdraw his application, citing personal reasons for no longer wishing to be a licenced driver.

The Committee decided to continue to determine the application. If the application were to be refused, this would be added to the National Register of Refusals, Revocations and Suspensions (NR3S), whereas a withdrawal would not be recorded.

Bearing in mind the seriousness of the concerns raised, the Committee felt that it was proportionate and appropriate to determine the matter before them, despite the applicant’s request to withdraw it.

Committee papers and reports had been provided to all relevant parties prior to the meeting. 

The report detailed the following:

- A copy of Applicant – 158251’s application

- A copy of a revocation letter to Applicant – 158251 revoking his licence and the reasons why from Middlesbrough Council.

- A copy of a summary transcript between Licensing Officers and Applicant – 158251.

The Committee understood that the matter before them was to determine an application for a private hire vehicle driver licence as detailed in the Committee report and appendices.

The Committee heard that Applicant – 158251 was previously licensed as a private hire driver with Middlesbrough Council for eleven weeks, from 16th May to 30th July 2024, when his licence was revoked. The Committee were told that officers were made aware of this following a search of the NR3S database, and that Applicant – 158251 did not declare holding a licence with Middlesbrough Council or being revoked by them on his application form.

The Committee heard that Middlesbrough Council provided the licensing team with a copy of the revocation decision letter sent to Applicant – 158251, outlining their reasons for the revocation of his licence. The Committee were told that the letter stated that information was received on 26th July 2024, by Middlesbrough Council, from an employee of James Cook Hospital. The Committee heard that the hospital employee reported that at approximately 7:00pm on 24th July 2024, she and her partner had witnessed Applicant – 158251 standing outside his private hire vehicle masturbating in full view of members of the public.

The Committee were told that Applicant – 158251 had explained to Middlesbrough Council officers during an interview that the reason for his actions was that he was suffering with a medical condition effecting his genital area causing bobbles on his penis. The Committee heard that Applicant – 158251 had told Middlesbrough Council officers that this condition caused him discomfort when sitting, and uncontrollable itching.

The Committee heard that Applicant – 158251 was interviewed by Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council licensing officers on 7th January 2025, regarding his application; Applicant – 158251 was asked why he did not declare his revocation from Middlesbrough Council on his application form. The Committee were told that Applicant – 158251 had advised officers that he was not aware that he had to declare this on his application, despite these questions being asked on the application form.

When asked to explain the incident that led to the revocation of his licence by Middlesbrough Council, the Committee were told that Applicant – 158251 said during interview’; “Honestly, what happened on that day was, they phoned me that I had masturbated. I have not masturbated. I have a wife. I have a five-year-old son. Why would I want to masturbate in people’s eyes. If I want to masturbate, I would go home. I have a wife. I tell my wife to help me masturbate, and I was not masturbating. That is wrong. I have a medical problem. I have a medical issue. I am going to my medical treatment.”

The Committee heard that Applicant – 158251 showed licensing officers the medication that he says he was prescribed for his medical condition; flucloxacillin, an antibiotic used to treat skin infections. The Committee were told that flucloxacillin explained to officers that it may have appeared as though he was masturbating, as the bobbles of his penis were painful, and in order re relieve these he had to break the bobbles off. 

The Committee were told that when asked, Applicant – 158251 did not know the name of his medical condition, however he had explained to officers that this is caused by sweating in his underwear which resulted in an infection.

The Committee heard that Applicant – 158251 had accepted that it was not right to expose his genitals in a public place, regardless of his assertion that he was not masturbating and described his behaviour as a human mistake.

The Committee were told that in response to being asked if he felt that he was a fit and proper person to hold a licence with this authority, Applicant – 158251 said, “Yes, I’ve done a mistake, but obviously I know the responsibilities and the value of, you know, holding a licence. I know it’s not a joke and I know, you know, basically, I know the responsibility and what needs to be done and what cannot be done when I am, you know, when I’m wearing my badge, I know I have responsibilities. So, I understand all that so I think I’m a suit...I mean, I’m fit to have a licence”.

The Committee heard that Middlesbrough Council had confirmed that, except for the complaint relating to masturbation, Applicant – 158251 did not receive any complaints during the brief period that he was licenced by them.

Finally, the Committee heard that officers requested evidence of Applicant – 158251’s medical condition, however this had not been provided to date.

The Committee asked the Licensing Officer if the police were involved in this matter. The Licensing Officer confirmed to the Committee that it appeared from the information that had been received that this matter was not reported to the police.

The Committee asked if there was any CCTV footage of the incident, and the Licensing Team Leader confirmed that her team had only been provided with a copy of Middlesbrough Council’s revocation decision letter, which did not refer to any CCTV footage.

Members had regard to the Committee papers, which had been circulated prior to the hearing and presented to them, in addition to the oral submissions made by the officers.

Having carefully considered the written documentation before them and in reaching their decision, the members had regard to the provisions of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976. The Committee also had regard to the Council’s Private Hire and Hackney Carriage Licensing Policy 2021 – 2026 (“the Policy”).

The Committee noted that under section 51 Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, the Committee shall not grant a driver’s licence unless they are satisfied that the applicant is a fit and proper person. When determining this application, the Committee considered this matter on its merits.

The Committee felt very strongly that whether Applicant – 158251 was masturbating, as it appeared to the witness, or itching his genitals due to a medical condition, as he had stated, either way it was completely unacceptable and wholly inappropriate to expose his genitals and behave in this way in public.

The Committee were also very concerned at Applicant – 158251’s lack of insight into his behaviour, which he appeared to minimise and dismiss as a mistake.

The Committee noted that no medical evidence had been provided to support Applicant – 158251’s assertion that he had a medical condition that caused uncontrollable itching. The Committee further noted, however, that even with such evidence, this would not have excused Applicant – 158251’s completely unacceptable actions.

The Committee noted Applicant – 158251’s reference in interview to having responsibilities. The Committee, however, also noted the decision in Leeds City Council-v-Mehfooz Hussain [2002] EWHC 1145 (Admin), where it was clarified that financial difficulties should not be considered when determining such matters under the licensing regime. The Committee understood that their paramount consideration was the safety of the travelling public, and that they could not therefore place weight on financial implications when determining applications. The Committee therefore did not place any weight on Mr Hussain’s financial responsibilities when reaching their decision.

Committee Members were not satisfied that they would allow people for whom they care to enter a vehicle with Applicant – 158251 due to their concerns regarding his inappropriate behaviour. The Committee felt that this was compounded by Applicant – 158251’s lack of remorse for such behaviour, and failure to declare that he had been previously licenced as a driver and subsequently revoked by Middlesbrough Council. The Committee noted that holding a licence was a privilege and not a right.

The Committee considered the Local Government Association Councillor Handbook: Taxi and PHV Licensing, which states:- “In the case of McCool v Rushcliffe Borough Council 1998, Lord Bingham said this:

“One must it seems to me approach this case bearing in mind the objectives of this licensing regime which is plainly intended among other things to ensure so far as possible that those licensed to drive private hire vehicles are suitable persons to do so, namely that they are safe drivers with good driving records and adequate experience; sober, mentally and physically fit, honest and not persons who would take advantage of their employment to abuse or assault passengers.”

Lord Bingham’s view has since been confirmed in two further court cases; Anwar v Cherwell District Council and Leeds City Council v Mehfooz Hussain [2002] EWHC 1145 (Admin). In the Committee’s view, the circumstances that have led to revocation being proposed mean that they could not ensure as far as possible that Applicant – 158251 was a suitable and fit person to be licenced.

Ultimately, the Committee do not believe that Applicant – 158251 was a fit and proper person to hold a private hire vehicle driver licence. The Committee were therefore unanimously satisfied that Applicant – 158251’s application should be refused.

RESOLVED that Applicant – 158251’s application for a Private Hire Driver’s licence be refused for the reasons as detailed above.